Medlock v. State

Decision Date31 October 1979
Docket NumberNos. 56067,56068,No. 3,s. 56067,3
Citation591 S.W.2d 485
PartiesNicolena MEDLOCK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Malcolm Dade, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry M. Wade, Dist. Atty., Steve Wilensky, Bob Whaley & Daniel P. Garrigan, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before DALLY, CLINTON and W. C. DAVIS, JJ.

OPINION

W. C. DAVIS, Judge.

These are appeals from two convictions for murder which were tried together in a single proceeding. The trial was before a jury, and the appellant received two sentences of life imprisonment.

The appellant was convicted for shooting her husband, Lee Arthur Medlock, and Yvett Harris, a waitress at the club where the shooting occurred. The record reflects that on the evening of February 6, 1975, the appellant left church after choir practice to meet her son and daughter-in-law at Mr. B's, a private club. The appellant was sitting at a table with the club manager and her daughter-in-law, when Medlock, the deceased, walked into the club. Witnesses for the State and the defense testified that the deceased stood by the cigarette machine, staring at the appellant. After 30 to 45 minutes, the deceased approached the table and said to the appellant, "You left the damn money for me. But it wasn't enough. And I don't want it." The appellant responded, "Okay . . . I know that. Now please don't bother me. Because I don't know all these folks in here. Just don't want to start anything." The deceased returned to the cigarette machine and continued to stare at the appellant. The appellant testified that she became frightened and began to tremble.

Wandalyn Cooper, the appellant's daughter-in-law, testified that approximately thirty minutes later, the deceased came over and grabbed the appellant by the neck and said, "Let's go. I'm going to get you." Cooper testified that she was terrified by the deceased's behavior. The appellant testified that the deceased reached for her and she pulled away. She testified, "He was coming after me, and I started shooting . . . He said, 'I'm going to get you' . . . I was scared. I didn't have nowhere to run . . . He was going to get me . . . It was my life or Medlock's." The appellant testified that she had been carrying the gun for protection since two rapes and a burglary had been committed near her home.

The appellant fired the gun three times; Yvett Harris was hit once and Lee Arthur Medlock was hit twice.

In her first ground of error, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, as requested. The trial court charged the jury on the offense of murder under V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 19.02, and also charged the jury on self-defense.

It is well established that where the evidence raises the issue of voluntary manslaughter, and the charge is properly requested, the court is required to submit the issue in its charge. Ray v. State, 515 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Armentrout v. State, 515 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Monroe v. State, 501 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). The testimony of the accused alone is sufficient to raise the issue. Ray, supra; Mays v. State, 513 S.W.2d 846 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). In Gonzales v. State, 546 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), we stated,

"It is immaterial if the theory of voluntary manslaughter was raised by appellant's own testimony or if the case is doubtful. As was the rule in murder without malice cases under Article 1257c of the former Penal Code, once the issue is raised by the evidence, the trial court, without determining the weight or the truth or falsity of the testimony, is bound to submit the issue for determination by the jury."

Furthermore, the fact that the evidence raises the issue of self-defense does not deprive the accused the right to an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Ray, supra; Monroe, supra.

Voluntary manslaughter is defined in V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 19.04 as:

"(a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual under circumstances that would constitute murder under Section 19.02 of this code, except that he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause.

"(b) 'Sudden passion' means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

"(c) 'Adequate cause' means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Bullard v. Estelle
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • September 26, 1980
    ... ... Bullard v. State, 533 S.W.2d 812 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976). The case was remanded to the trial court, which received additional evidence and again imposed a life sentence ... ...
  • Mejia v. Stephens
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • October 11, 2017
    ...phase. "[S]udden passion and self-defense are not mutually exclusive." Beltran , 472 S.W.3d at 290 (citing Medlock v. State , 591 S.W.2d 485, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) ) (holding that a defendant convicted of murder after unsuccessfully arguing self-defense at the guilt-innocence phase was......
  • Bravo v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 20, 1982
    ...is properly requested the court is bound to submit such issue. Roberts v. State, 590 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Medlock v. State, 591 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). In Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691, 698 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), this court "A charge on a lesser included offense is not required......
  • Benavides v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 25, 1999
    ...right to have the jury consider the issue in the first instance. Roberts v. State, 590 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Medlock v. State, 591 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). The fact that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the law of self-defense did not render the failure to in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Jury Charges. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • May 4, 2021
    ...v. State 13 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) 9:570, 9:680 Medina v. State 7 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) 3:260 Medlock v. State 591 S.W.2d 485 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979) 3:2060, 6:80 Meeking v. State 148 S.W. 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912) 11:50 Mendenhall v. State 77 S.W.3d 815 (......
  • Defenses and special evidentiary charges
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Jury Charges. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • May 4, 2021
    ...entitled to a charge, notwithstanding claims of self-defense. Roberts v. State , 590 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979); Medlock v. State , 591 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Crim. App. 1979). For offenses committed before September 1, 1994, voluntary manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of murder. Moor......
  • Offenses against person
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Jury Charges. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • May 4, 2021
    ...entitled to a charge, notwithstanding claims of self-defense. Roberts v. State , 590 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979); Medlock v. State , 591 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). In Simpson v. State , the defendant loitered outside a grocery store before firing his gun through its front window, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT